Renard Ruche
SOC-12
Thanks Ty and everyone else....think I might use this formula to bring armor to my LBB2 designs
High Guard Armor Fix
- Thread starter tbeard1999
- Start date
Renard Ruche
SOC-12
Thanks Ty and everyone else....think I might use this formula to bring armor to my LBB2 designs
jarednoble
SOC-6
Here is a thread on the same topic from a while back that addresses the same issue.
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000472;p=1
I went through the same process, and created a simple formula that easily approximates the required armor tonnage.
The required hull tonnage in my system are different, because instead of basing my formulas around the 100k tonnage like tbeard1999, I started with the assumption that the 1k tonnage values are correct.
Of course neither approach is wrong, but they do differ in focus. I personally like the small-ship (or at least smallish) universe, and wanted to keep armor a viable option for smaller ships. Also, there are no 500kTon behemoths IMTU.
Enjoy,
Imix
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000472;p=1
I went through the same process, and created a simple formula that easily approximates the required armor tonnage.
The required hull tonnage in my system are different, because instead of basing my formulas around the 100k tonnage like tbeard1999, I started with the assumption that the 1k tonnage values are correct.
Of course neither approach is wrong, but they do differ in focus. I personally like the small-ship (or at least smallish) universe, and wanted to keep armor a viable option for smaller ships. Also, there are no 500kTon behemoths IMTU.
Enjoy,
Imix
jarednoble
SOC-6
Here is a thread on the same topic from a while back that addresses the same issue.
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000472;p=1
I went through the same process, and created a simple formula that easily approximates the required armor tonnage.
The required hull tonnage in my system are different, because instead of basing my formulas around the 100k tonnage like tbeard1999, I started with the assumption that the 1k tonnage values are correct.
Of course neither approach is wrong, but they do differ in focus. I personally like the small-ship (or at least smallish) universe, and wanted to keep armor a viable option for smaller ships. Also, there are no 500kTon behemoths IMTU.
Enjoy,
Imix
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000472;p=1
I went through the same process, and created a simple formula that easily approximates the required armor tonnage.
The required hull tonnage in my system are different, because instead of basing my formulas around the 100k tonnage like tbeard1999, I started with the assumption that the 1k tonnage values are correct.
Of course neither approach is wrong, but they do differ in focus. I personally like the small-ship (or at least smallish) universe, and wanted to keep armor a viable option for smaller ships. Also, there are no 500kTon behemoths IMTU.
Enjoy,
Imix
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
not quite. in HG2 a factor 9 weapon that hits an armor 15 fighter (<100 dtons) will do two critical hits. </font>[/QUOTE]You're correct. A factor-9 weapon will inflict 9-(15/2) = 2 critical hits if it hits the fighter. A factor-8 weapon will inflict 1 critical hit.
But I don't think that this really changes my point. At TL 15+, it will take 30 beam lasers or 20 fusion guns to get to factor-9. Other turreted weapons capable of shooting at fighters can't get there at all. Alternatively, Meson Gun and Particle Accelerator 100 ton bay weapons, and Fusion Gun or Missle 50 ton bays are factor-9. This seems like a lot of firepower necessary to get a single shot (which may miss) at an enemy fighter.
This also requires ship designers to mass their weapons into factor-8 or 9 batteries if possible. Probably not a terrible problem for 50K ton battlecruisers, but potentially a huge problem for a 400 ton close escort.
And the bottom line is that in the real world, surface area does *not* increase linearly with displacement, so the HG armor rules are defective. The good news is that by replacing the armor rules with more reasonable rules, fighters can no longer break -- or severely stress -- the system.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
not quite. in HG2 a factor 9 weapon that hits an armor 15 fighter (<100 dtons) will do two critical hits. </font>[/QUOTE]You're correct. A factor-9 weapon will inflict 9-(15/2) = 2 critical hits if it hits the fighter. A factor-8 weapon will inflict 1 critical hit.
But I don't think that this really changes my point. At TL 15+, it will take 30 beam lasers or 20 fusion guns to get to factor-9. Other turreted weapons capable of shooting at fighters can't get there at all. Alternatively, Meson Gun and Particle Accelerator 100 ton bay weapons, and Fusion Gun or Missle 50 ton bays are factor-9. This seems like a lot of firepower necessary to get a single shot (which may miss) at an enemy fighter.
This also requires ship designers to mass their weapons into factor-8 or 9 batteries if possible. Probably not a terrible problem for 50K ton battlecruisers, but potentially a huge problem for a 400 ton close escort.
And the bottom line is that in the real world, surface area does *not* increase linearly with displacement, so the HG armor rules are defective. The good news is that by replacing the armor rules with more reasonable rules, fighters can no longer break -- or severely stress -- the system.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Yep, I'd re-scale the formula if I used a "small ship" universe.
--Ty
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Yep, I'd re-scale the formula if I used a "small ship" universe.
--Ty
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.
it is. but that's not a problem with the armor system - by the time a weapon stands a reasonable chance of hitting a fighter, it's achieving critical hits.
HG2 is just hinky at the fighter level. probably ought to get rid of the -2 size modifier and add a third HG2 range, contact, where laser and energy weapons get +1 to hit and missiles are at -2. this would allow fighters occasionally to hit each other with cinematic weapons - on 12+ - and would mean that personal skills such as pilot and gunnery would become extremely significant in such engagements. this would make fighter activity much more gameable.
it is. but that's not a problem with the armor system - by the time a weapon stands a reasonable chance of hitting a fighter, it's achieving critical hits.
HG2 is just hinky at the fighter level. probably ought to get rid of the -2 size modifier and add a third HG2 range, contact, where laser and energy weapons get +1 to hit and missiles are at -2. this would allow fighters occasionally to hit each other with cinematic weapons - on 12+ - and would mean that personal skills such as pilot and gunnery would become extremely significant in such engagements. this would make fighter activity much more gameable.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
it is. but that's not a problem with the armor system - by the time a weapon stands a reasonable chance of hitting a fighter, it's achieving critical hits.</font>[/QUOTE]I think that it *is* a problem with the armor system because the armor system allows a *fighter* to be so well-protected that only comparatively huge concentrations of firepower can stop it.
Worse, there's a problem with getting factor-8+ weaponry on smaller craft. The Gazelle class close escort, for example, is utterly helpless against a sensibly designed TL15 fighter. A ship armed only with lasers is in trouble if it has less than 30 lasers (21 if TL13+). Even then, it can engage exactly ONE fighter per turn (per 30 lasers). (Maybe the High Guard universe didn't see Star Wars?) And if it takes damage to the lasers, it will be helpless.
Also -- and this is really bad -- two sensibly designed TL15 fighters cannot hurt each other in HG! Neither fighter can deploy a factor 8+ weapon.
Given that Traveller is first and foremost a roleplaying game, distortions at the lower end of starship size are potentially far more damaging.
Or, you could simply eliminate the glitch in the design system that causes the problem with fighters in the first place. This seems to me to be less complex than your suggestions (although they sound interesting for giving more texture to fighters), and it also results in a more accurate design system.
As noted, surface area -- and therefore armor mass -- simply does not scale proportionally with volume, so HG's armor system is defective.
That is why you find heavy armor on *heavy* tanks in the Real World. If armor protection was scalable like High Guard, we should expect to find 20 ton tanks with as much armor protection as 70 ton tanks. Navy destroyers would be as well protected as battleships. Etc.
Of course, I can live with distortion in games -- so long as it doesn't create absurdity. HG's armor system creates absurdity in my opinion, by allowing fighters to be just as well protected as million ton dreadnoughts.
Fixing the armor rules will fix the problem. If the formula proposed is too complex, you could go with the suggestion to limit maximum armor protection for smaller ships.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
it is. but that's not a problem with the armor system - by the time a weapon stands a reasonable chance of hitting a fighter, it's achieving critical hits.</font>[/QUOTE]I think that it *is* a problem with the armor system because the armor system allows a *fighter* to be so well-protected that only comparatively huge concentrations of firepower can stop it.
Worse, there's a problem with getting factor-8+ weaponry on smaller craft. The Gazelle class close escort, for example, is utterly helpless against a sensibly designed TL15 fighter. A ship armed only with lasers is in trouble if it has less than 30 lasers (21 if TL13+). Even then, it can engage exactly ONE fighter per turn (per 30 lasers). (Maybe the High Guard universe didn't see Star Wars?) And if it takes damage to the lasers, it will be helpless.
Also -- and this is really bad -- two sensibly designed TL15 fighters cannot hurt each other in HG! Neither fighter can deploy a factor 8+ weapon.
Given that Traveller is first and foremost a roleplaying game, distortions at the lower end of starship size are potentially far more damaging.
Or, you could simply eliminate the glitch in the design system that causes the problem with fighters in the first place. This seems to me to be less complex than your suggestions (although they sound interesting for giving more texture to fighters), and it also results in a more accurate design system.
As noted, surface area -- and therefore armor mass -- simply does not scale proportionally with volume, so HG's armor system is defective.
That is why you find heavy armor on *heavy* tanks in the Real World. If armor protection was scalable like High Guard, we should expect to find 20 ton tanks with as much armor protection as 70 ton tanks. Navy destroyers would be as well protected as battleships. Etc.
Of course, I can live with distortion in games -- so long as it doesn't create absurdity. HG's armor system creates absurdity in my opinion, by allowing fighters to be just as well protected as million ton dreadnoughts.
Fixing the armor rules will fix the problem. If the formula proposed is too complex, you could go with the suggestion to limit maximum armor protection for smaller ships.
Similar threads
